robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Stock Robots
Bondi Titch is a stock robot This has already been established ages ago. There is no need for the citation template whatsoever. CrashBash (talk) 22:13, October 10, 2016 (UTC) :As I have tried to explain many times, the citation template is not to be removed when its deemed "true", its to be removed when a proper citation is added so that readers know how we know. Its one of the most basic rules of information gathering. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:15, October 10, 2016 (UTC) ::No, because whenever you add the citation template, you threaten to delete the statement, even though it's factual. There's a difference. CrashBash (talk) 22:21, October 10, 2016 (UTC) ::The threat won't be carried out if its cited, and if it is indeed true and correct and the relevant Wiki user is active, there won't be a problem. I haven't really deleted anything yet, I'm happy for the citation template to sit there indefinitely so that we can't be accused of making stuff up. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:23, October 10, 2016 (UTC) :::John Heatlie, of the Corkscrew team, is your source. He left a comment on a YouTube video, which is why the Bondi Titch page was re-written. CrashBash (talk) 22:25, October 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::Right, it appears that I've had to actually be the one to put the reference on despite knowing nothing about it. Can someone please find the link and perhaps copy the quote to this talk page, or at least put the relevant video in the reference tag? Thank you. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:33, October 10, 2016 (UTC) BOTS Just thinking here, shouldn't the ''Battle of the Stars robots be classed as Stock Robots too? They pretty much fall under the same category as them, especially the likes of Bondi Titch and Ramrombit, in that they were made specifically to compete in an event. CrashBash (talk) 06:17, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :Definitely, I hadn't realised we were missing them. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'''TOAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 06:22, December 9, 2017 (UTC) The only problem i see is that there was a rumor that an unspecific BOTS robot may have been reused for that International side competition as a loaned robot, with pictures online. I don't want to say too much, though. I don't know if what I'm saying now could count as breaking the rules with mentioning an unaired program. Am I allowed to mention the story without breaking the rules? You guys already have most of the info up...ToonRaiderStudios (talk) 08:01, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :All I can say is that, if this were to occur, we are forced to treat these robots as separate entities anyway, and they'll get their own articles. This may not be consistent with the way we treat loanerbots right now, but we're going to make it that way. It will therefore be possible to class one as a stock robot, and the other as a loanerbot. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 08:11, December 9, 2017 (UTC) Am i allowed to mention this robot? You guys have already just talked about how he just entered the international tournament already, so all I would be doing is clarifying what it looks like. ToonRaiderStudios (talk) 08:17, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :It's probably best not to, because technically that constitutes as a spoiler (even though I think I know who you're talking about). CrashBash (talk) 14:07, December 9, 2017 (UTC) Stock Robots and Loanerbots Alright I think it's about time I raised a question which has seemingly gone unanswered for years - do stock robots and loanerbots truly deserve separate pages? Like how we have now distinguished body spinners from rim spinners, clusterbots from minibots, and shufflebots from walkers while housing an article between each, I think we should do the same for stock robots and loanerbots. Now I'm not denying that there is a difference between the two categories, these have been fairly well established, but the average reader cannot easily make this distinguishment. Let me give an example. The opening line for Loanerbots is "Loanerbots were competitor robots which were built by the Robot Wars technical crew and loaned to teams in order to make up the numbers in a certain series". The opening line for Stock Robots is "Stock Robots were robots provided by the Robot Wars production crew in order to make up the numbers in a given event." Is that not extremely similar? Could one say that both descriptions apply to Steve Dove's Eubank the Mouse, for example? It's a tad confusing. If we are to believe the rumoured appearance of Rabid M8 is correct, does that count as a loanerbot while we consider a similar robot to be a stock robot, and thus they end up on different pages? How did Bondi-Titch even end up on stock robots instead of loanerbots - is it just because it competed in a UK series? The way I see it, we have three options. *The first being that we leave things as they are. *The second is for us to merge both articles under the Stock Robots hood (unless the community prefers Loanerbots), and include a section on the differences between the two terms, and then list them all in one table, using bolded names to differentiate the Stock Robots and Loanerbots. *The third is for us to put the subtle differences aside, and unite all of the robots under the Stock Robots hood, relegating points such as the forced elimination of the Series 1 stock robots as something pertinent to that series, rather than that type of robot. At the moment I feel more inclined towards the third option, but I still think that the second choice is much less confusing than our current approach. What do we think? [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 06:47, December 9, 2017 (UTC) As long as we keep the two clear that there is a difference. In a sense, Loanerbots are a type of Stock Robot. Like how dolphins are whales, but whales are not dolphins. Maybe we can mention that the loaners are a TYPE of stock robot, and mention on the stock robot page that there is a category of Stock Robots, being Loaner bots. I also just wanted to point out as well, that many of the sources that come from teams that competed there referred to some of these Loaners as "House Loaner Robots". ToonRaiderStudios (talk) 07:57, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :That's essentially what I meant by the second option. House Loaner Robots is worth a mention as an alternative term, thanks. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 08:00, December 9, 2017 (UTC) I think at the end of the day, since they share such a similar niche, we might as well group them all together. They share the exact same "backstory" at the end of the day - they're just robots made by the RW technical crew for other roboteers to use for various reasons. I think the whole reason we split them in the first place was purely because of the original three, and their designated rules. There's also the fact that the robots we class as "loanerbots" were specifically for teams that couldn't enter their own robots, but then again, isn't that the same as the stocks, to a degree or two? We'd probably be best with option three, coupled with a "history" of sorts detailing how each series differed with how they were used, if applicable. CrashBash (talk) 14:14, December 9, 2017 (UTC) I do agree. Perhaps we could do something like the Walking robots page? Say, at the top have the overall info on the subject (Being the Stock Robots), and their list, while lower on the page is the mention of the alternate versions of the Stock Robots, being Loaner Bots. It worked well for the Walker Robot page, as it talks about Walker Robots, and their definitions, while lower on the page explaining the smaller category of Shufflebots. Would it work for the Loaner/Stock bots page too? ToonRaiderStudios (talk) 19:06, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :I'm all for the merge, but under the name "loanerbots", as I believe that is the more general term. All stock robots are loanerbots, but not all loaner bots are stock bots (i.e. Terror Australis/Nemesis). Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:18, December 9, 2017 (UTC) I'm down for that. All of those bots were loaned to someone, after all, at one point or another. Even the ones in the early series. ToonRaiderStudios (talk) 22:30, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :I approve of the merger as well - should be no different to the existing Walkerbot/Shufflebot or Clusterbot/Minibot pages in principle. As for the available options, I would consider the third option, but for a different reason; if we were to highlight the differences between Stock Robots and Loanerbots as with the second option, how would we explain the case of, say, Ramrombit, which was a Stock Robot that was essentially ''loaned to George Francis for the Inferno Insurrection? [[User:VulcansHowl|'''Vulcans]][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 23:13, December 9, 2017 (UTC) That would be somewhat tough. The same can be said about the upcoming robot that was originally a Stock Robot for BOTS, but is now being Loaned to a team. We'd have to make a note on that. Perhaps a notice on robots that were used as both? ToonRaiderStudios (talk) 01:23, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :The italics would simply be used in the 'second identity' column. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 14:18, December 10, 2017 (UTC)